David Miliband: I can do no better than to quote the leader of the hon. Gentleman's own party, who said in February, "You have to revalue". Conservative Members have to think about that and get some consistency into their own position.

David Miliband: I am glad that the hon. Lady has extended the usual courtesies to new Front Benchers and has started off in the manner in which she intends to carry on. I am certainly not looking forward to the next reshuffle, as you are as likely to go out as you are to go up. It is always important to remember that we are not looking to implement local income tax, which would not be a sensible way forward; but I look forward to debating these issues with her in an open and frank way.

Phil Woolas: The Office of the Deputy Minister is responsible for the creating sustainable communities policy—communities that are thriving, well run, active, inclusive and, importantly, safe. We are working hard to develop that culture of respect to which the question refers.

Daniel Kawczynski: what the timetable is for the establishment of regional fire control rooms.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The FireControl project is due to complete its rollout by end of the financial year 2008/09. Any updates will be posted on the FireControl website (http://www.firecontrol.odpm.gov.uk)

Michael Howard: Surely, the position of the French people, at any rate, is very clear. I never thought that I would hear myself saying this, but 15.5 million French people cannot be wrong.
	Let me see whether I can help the Prime Minister out of his dilemma on Europe. He may have been seduced, as so many people were, by the argument that our joining the euro was inevitable. Now we know that it is not. He may have been seduced by the argument that the constitution was inevitable. Now we know that it is not. Did not last week mark the end of inevitability in Europe? Does it not present us all with a great opportunity to develop a different kind of Europe—a flexible Europe in which the European Union does less, but does it better, and starts on the process of returning powers to Britain and the other member states?

Tony Blair: I am trying to work out what the shaking head of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland really means. I had better make inquiries, lest I over-interpret the sign language. I shall look into the details, but my understanding is that there is no intention of selling off Stormont or the park. I have heard of no such proposal.

Violent Crime Reduction
	Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Tessa Jowell, Secretary Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears, presented a Bill to make provision for reducing and dealing with the abuse of alcohol; to make provision about real and imitation firearms, about ammunition and about knives and other weapons; to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989 and the Football (Disorder) Act 2000; to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; to amend section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969; to amend the Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Act 2002; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 10].

Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that that Government promise was not made exclusively on 13 May this year? It was made on 18 April by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who was then Minister for Europe, and was stated formally by the Prime Minister to the House on 20 April 2004 at column 164 of Hansard in a reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). In those circumstances, what credibility does my hon. Friend attach to the formal promises made by the Prime Minister?

Liam Fox: I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) later. I have accepted many interventions in a brief period, but I shall certainly give way to one of my favourite Eurosceptics in the House.
	There are areas where we must not pool our sovereignty any further. It was into those areas that the now defunct constitution wished to trespass, and which the Commission is most likely to want to cherry-pick. We cannot simply sit back and allow the European Union to acquire the trappings of statehood, such as a single diplomatic service and a president, without giving the British people a voice. It would be unthinkable to allow the European Union to sign treaties as a single legal entity—the definition of a nation state—without the people having a chance to veto such a development. The development of the post of Foreign Minister and an EU diplomatic service are part of a much longer-term plan. Let us remember what the constitution does. It proposes to give the Union increasing responsibility for the foreign and defence policies of all member states. It would allow the EU to define the collective strategic interests of member states. It would create an EU Foreign Minister to formulate and implement EU foreign policy and represent the union diplomatically. It would require member states to
	"co-ordinate their action in international organizations",
	to integrate and harmonise member states' defence capabilities and to provide for concerted action in the case of conflict. That represents a profound change for Britain and Europe. It is intellectually legitimate to have a vision of a united Europe. I profoundly disagree with that vision, but let us not pretend that it is an efficiency measure.

Liam Fox: There is no logic to that argument. The situation would be better if the EU Commissioners tackled fraud in the EU rather than whistleblowers. All too often, those who run the EU—in particular, the Commissioners—turn a blind eye to endemic fraud and waste because it does not suit their short-term political agenda to deal with it. The EU needs a system in which the Court of Auditors is willing to sign off the accounts, which did not happen for 10 years under the current system. If that were to happen to a British company, we all know what the consequences would be. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has made his intervention, and I am sure that he will make an interesting speech that keeps hon. Members glued to their seats.
	The constitution would also build on the European convention on human rights, with the proposed charter of fundamental rights as the bedrock of constitutional law in the EU. Judges in Brussels would accrue immense power over the interpretation of legislation, and thus over the people of this country. Once again, power would be transferred, and it is yet another element of the constitution on which the British people should have their say.
	Iain Murray, a senior fellow in the international policy group at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has made some interesting comparisons between the charter and the US Bill of Rights:
	"As we all know, the American Bill of Rights is couched mostly in negative terms, forbidding government from certain action. The European charter, however, is couched in positive terms, bestowing rights upon citizens by the grace of its actions . . . The EU constitution is in many ways the complete opposite of the US Constitution. It protects institutions' powers and enumerates rights. It limits its member states' freedom while accruing powers based on one political world view to the centre".
	He has also pointed out one great contradiction in the charter:
	"the charter contains a get-out clause. Any of these rights may be limited in the interest of meeting 'objectives of general interest recognised by the Union.' A raison d'etat is thereby enshrined in the constitution. Presumably this is how the EU will reconcile its actions against 'xenophobia' with the general principle of freedom of expression."
	But one of the best summaries of the failures of the constitution that I have yet read—it is available from the Library—came from Jonathan Kallmer, an attorney in Washington who practises international litigation and arbitration. He wrote:
	"The problem is not precisely that the constitution is too ambitious; constitutions should be ambitious. The problem is that it is ambitious in ways that exacerbate the problems it was meant to remedy. The European Union has achieved great things, but part of the virtue of doing great things is recognising what cannot be done. All of the draft constitution's flaws flow directly or indirectly from its framers' failure to recognise limits."
	He continued:
	"The essential merits of a constitution are found as much in the process as in the substance. An effective constitutional document not only sets out the core rights of citizens and the basic structures of government, but does so in a way that is clear, concise, and accessible. A constitution is for people, not bureaucrats, and it is imperative that it speaks as plainly as possible. The European draft constitution shows few of these procedural virtues."
	Finally, he noted:
	"At over 200 pages the document is simply too long. If it takes that much paper to discuss fundamental values and a clear institutional structure, it is likely that the values are not fundamental and the institutional structure is not clear."

Liam Fox: It is a great shame that the debate on Europe is always reduced to an oversimplified debate based on, "You have to be in or you have to be out." That is the argument beloved of the Government when they put forward the inevitability of our having to swallow everything that we are given because the alternative is to leave the European Union. That is a fundamentally dishonest way of portraying the debate on Europe. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—there are other ways in which we could achieve the results that we want, and it is time that this country, in a reasonably mature way, started that debate. We have nothing to be afraid of, because if we fail, the consequences are grim not only for the United Kingdom but for Europe as a whole. That is the issue to which I shall turn in a moment.
	We cannot accept this constitution either in whole or in part. We think that it is bad for Britain and bad for Europe. Yet less, than half an hour ago in this House, the Prime Minister described it as, "a perfectly sensible way forward."
	We know that many in the European institutions still seem intent on ignoring the democratic will of voters and trying to resurrect their creature. Only two weeks ago, the present holder of the EU presidency said:
	"the countries that have said no will have to ask themselves the question again".
	Again, we seek clarity from the Government. Last year, the Prime Minister told this House:
	"There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people . . . Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject".—[Offiical Report, 21 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1090.]
	When he returns from the summit, the Prime Minister must come to this House and either tell us that the ratification process is over or reintroduce the legislation and hold a referendum in this country as soon as possible.

Liam Fox: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
	As The Economist put it,
	"whereas the traditional builders of Europe were suspicious of nationalism and keen to build up supranational institutions at the expense of the nation state, many of the Central Europeans are still joyfully reasserting their own national identities after decades of Soviet domination. As Vaclav Havel said, 'the concept of national sovereignty is something inviolable'."
	That lesson has still to be learned by some of Europe's old masters. Last year, President Chirac slapped down accession states for daring to disagree with French policy on Iraq, and Chancellor Schröder threatens new EU states that use low tax rates to undercut German industry with financial retaliation.
	Europe needs to have a genuine debate as we stand at the current crossroads. Yes, there have been many achievements, not least the liberation and stabilisation of Spain, Greece and Portugal, and subsequently the former east European states, from dictatorship to democracy. However, there are also many negative entries on the balance sheet.
	The French and Dutch voters have done us all a great favour. They have stopped in its tracks a constitution that would have taken Europe in entirely the wrong direction. Perhaps the signing of the constitution by our Prime Minister was the high watermark of European integration. We now have the chance to develop a more flexible Europe, which is more outward-looking, less centralised, less bureaucratic, more trusting of national identity, and designed to be the servant, not the master, of its citizens. The UK must champion that agenda with leadership and courage. Nothing is inevitable; change is possible. All that is required is the strength, belief and courage to see it through.

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend makes the important point that, following the shadow Foreign Secretary's contribution today, we are none the wiser as to his position on referendums as we look back to the Single European Act and Maastricht. My hon. Friend makes another important point—that the uncertainty and ambivalence is not limited solely to the issue of referendums, because it applies to the more fundamental issue of renegotiation. If we examine the Conservative manifesto, on which the party decisively lost just a month ago, we find explicit reference to the fact that the Conservatives would seek to repatriate powers in respect of the common fisheries policy, for example. In the light of at least one intervention today, the statements contained in the manifesto presage an even more fundamental shift in the Conservative party position.
	We need to recognise that while, even a few years ago, the idea of renegotiation on the way to exiting the EU was regarded as being of only marginal interest to the more extreme fringes of the Conservative party, but it now appears to be becoming the ruling orthodoxy of the shadow Cabinet. In that context, the repeated assertion by the shadow Foreign Secretary today that renegotiation matters and somehow represents Britain's national interest poses the further question—it could, ideally, be answered by the shadow Minister when he winds up the debate—of the specific areas in which the Conservatives are seeking to renegotiate the existing European treaties?
	There is clearly uncertainty within the shadow Cabinet. I appreciate that a leadership election is under way in the Conservative party, but does the party policy include the sort of fundamental renegotiation of rights anticipated by the shadow Secretary of State for Deregulation or is it limited simply to what was contained in the Conservative manifesto? Perhaps the shadow Minister will clarify the position when he addresses the House later.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Why is the Minister so amazed at the phrase "renegotiation"? The Convention on the Future of Europe was a giant renegotiation of all the existing treaties that were going to be abolished. The Minister did not engage with it with sufficient determination to make it a success. We wish to do so in order to achieve a genuine, democratic Europe that is closer to its citizens. So yes, we believe in renegotiation and yes, the Minister's party tried and failed to deal with it.

John Bercow: The Minister was sniffily dismissive of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), but the point stands that the burden of regulation is excessive, remorseless, disproportionate to need and beyond the capacity of member states to pay, without damaging competitiveness. I ask the Minister in all sincerity—I sign up to the principle of economic reform—whether he accepts that a powerful argument can be made within the EU for the adoption of the principle of sunset regulation so that the process is not always one way and is not a continuing ratchet in favour of greater regulation without regard to the interests of business and the workplace.

Austin Mitchell: It is simply madness, and it goes against anything that is sensible in economics. We in this country have been inoculated against the dangers of managing the economy to maintain the exchange rate. Things should be the other way round: the exchange rate must be used and adjusted for the purposes of the economy. Failures in this country caused by such an attempt to maintain a fixed exchange rate at all costs should have inoculated us against any enthusiasm, interest or involvement in either the exchange rate mechanism or the euro. We have enough examples of the damage that that has done.
	Fortunately, those examples have convinced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to control our Prime Minister's naive enthusiasm for making a political commitment by joining the euro. We are all very grateful for that because the country has benefited, but for France and Germany the consequence of that trend towards monetary union was that that their economies slowed drastically. They are the European economy's driving motors, but both slowed down: growth was much lower and unemployment was much higher, hovering between 10 and 12 per cent., with disastrous consequences.
	The euro created the depressed economic situation that lies at the heart of Europe. In fact, the euro turned Europe into the high-unemployment, low-growth blackspot of the advanced world—the worst example of failure. Even Margaret Thatcher's Britain did better in growth terms, for reasons that I will come to in a minute, and it is that climate that produced "No" votes in France and Holland. "It's the economy, stupid", one has to say.
	Clearly, Spain was going to vote for the European constitution to keep the money flowing because it has benefited substantially; it is laughing all the way to bank. But, equally clearly, those countries where the people have a say in a referendum and where the euro has done economic damage—Holland and France so far; there are others to come—will vote against the constitution in such circumstances.

Austin Mitchell: Well, there is more excitement to come, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be keen to wait for it.
	My conclusion on the twin-track approach in which the monetary union track has done such damage to the constitutional track is, "It's the euro wot done it", as The Sun might put it, and there is no point in dredging around for further explanation. The question for the House and for Europe is, what happens now? There have been attempts—particularly in Europe, but also by some of our Euro-enthusiastic friends in this country—to look at the vote and say that people were not really voting on the constitution; they were voting against Chirac or against unemployment, or whatever.
	We are having séances to interrogate the parrot—there is a lot of excuse making—but we cannot pick and choose with an electoral verdict: no means no, means nein, means nee, and that is it, frankly. I appreciate that the Government cannot say that as openly as we Back Benchers can say it. They have to hang back, dressed in black, looking sombre and serious, perhaps with a few tears added for special effect. They must say nothing, and let the fact of death emerge in Europe. That will certainly complicate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's presidency of the European Union—it will make it very difficult.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe listed a quite exciting prospectus for Europe, including fighting poverty in Africa and getting rid of the common agricultural policy. I wish that he had added the common fisheries policy as well, and I certainly wish that its impact was diminished. That agenda is very attractive and important, but it will be difficult for this country to do anything about it, given that the other member states will object to British leadership because that is the only policy left to them. That will make getting anything done in Europe stickier, more difficult and harder during our presidency. In any case, it will make it difficult to lead members of the European Union in a wholly new direction.
	It is sad therefore that added to the attractive list of things that need to be done which my right hon. Friend outlined is so-called reform—this is our central proposition—which amounts to liberalisation, rolling back the state, cutting public spending, cutting welfare provision and weakening the power of labour and the unions. That is laughingly referred to as freeing up labour markets or deregulating them. It amounts to a Thatcherite programme so flagrant that the Europeans could well erect a Thatcher statue next to the pissing boy in Brussels, which we could look on with a certain feeling of shock and concern. It is very much a Thatcherite programme. A Labour Government are urging Europe to get rid of its social programme just as that social programme has been diluted in the Labour party. That is not the answer to Europe's problems. That kind of Thatcherite, monetarist programme—we call it a reform programme—is not what Europe wants and it is not what the electorate of France voted for. They voted against such a programme, which they regard as British.
	That programme will not work. It did not even work in this country. That is where I come to the point interjected by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). In the 1980s, the Thatcherite programme inflicted deep damage on our manufacturing sector, which was more severely harmed and reduced than that of any other country. That makes it very difficult for us to pay our way in the world, to provide jobs for people and to fight back against our current economic circumstances. There has been an expansion of the white-collar and consumer sectors, but the manufacturing base has been drastically eroded.
	That programme also increases public spending because the more that we put people out of work to discipline the unions and to weaken the power of labour, the less tax comes in and the more goes out in benefits. Do we want that in Europe? Do we want to force that sort of programme on countries that already have a 12 per cent. rate of unemployment? It is ludicrous to suggest that the rest of Europe should go down that path.
	The recovery in the 1980s came, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North suggested, when the value of the pound came down, precipitating the Lawson boom and stimulating the whole economy. That performance was repeated—Conservative Governments repeat themselves in this fashion—in the early 1990s, when deflation was made necessary by joining the ERM.
	I was interested to hear the Liberals' view on the ERM, because I remember that, at the time, they were leading wild mobs down Whitehall, chanting the popular cry of "Move to the narrower bands now!" Now they tell us that we went into the ERM at an over-valued rate, but, back then, they wanted to make things even harder by tightening up the rate. That was the Liberal strategy in the 1990s. We escaped the disastrous consequences of all that only when we were forced out of the ERM, and the economy immediately began to recover.
	Labour Members have every reason to be grateful to the Conservative Government who began that recovery by taking the decision to leave the ERM. That has certainly benefited Labour in power substantially, but it indicates that it is not deflation or reforms but a change in the exchange rate that produce recovery and expansion. The problem was effectively ended by devaluation, as was the Thatcher period. That was what stimulated the economy, and it is what Europe needs, given its current situation. An expansion of demand is the only way out of the trap.

William Cash: As I stood in the Place de la Bastille and the Place de la République a few days ago and heard the results as they came through, I was bound to reflect on the fact that there had been a historic change. The Chamber is not entirely full—on the other side of the House to say the least—for a debate that is a reflection on a new French revolution. There has been a massive change with the rejection of a concept and project that has developed since the second world war, and even before.
	I was also bound to consider at that moment that our party could have made Europe a central issue during the election campaign. An opinion poll commissioned by the European Foundation immediately after the general election showed that 55 per cent. of people in this country, and 62 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds, thought that Europe should have been a central issue in the election campaign. That ICM poll surveyed people across the board from all parties. If we had treated Europe as a central issue, I think that we would have got close to winning the election, or even have had the opportunity to win it, given that we are in the wake of an historic vote in France.
	We are debating the most fundamental question facing the people of this country, as we have said in many debates over the past 20 years. The fundamental question that was before the people of France and Holland was about who governs them. We heard much about the fact that the vote in France was a rejection of President Chirac, but the people were really rejecting the policies that President Chirac was following on the economic and political structure that he had agreed through his relationship with the European Union. The historic rejection was, in truth, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, a rejection of the high unemployment and low growth that were the inevitable consequence of following those policies. That is the true lesson, as I tried to indicate while the results were coming through.
	The Maastricht treaty is history now, but there are elements of this debate that relate to questions raised at that time. It is not necessary for us to say who got there first or to bring up those of us who were part and parcel of the referendum campaigns. Many Conservative Members fought strongly against the Whip and the conventional wisdom of the time for a referendum because we believed that the matter was so fundamentally important that it could not be left to the party Whips. We said that the treaty would ultimately lead to a constitution, as indeed it did, and we wrote about that at the time. We took a stand, and the best that we can say about it now is that we were not entirely proved wrong.
	The most important thing now is to look to the future and regard the historic change as an opportunity. It is an opportunity for not only the United Kingdom and this Parliament, but Europe as a whole. Our only problem is that the language coming out of Europe from Mr. Juncker, Mr. De Villepin, President Chirac and Mr. Schröder is third rate. They do not seem to have been able to take on board the fact that the elite of Europe has been rejected. The arguments that they put forward, which accumulated over time, have been rejected by the people of Europe. There is no serious doubt that if there were an attempt to resurrect what has now been called the dead Euro-parrot by having a second vote in either France or Holland, there would be an even bigger vote against it. Can they not listen and realise what is going on? There is an absolute arrogant refusal to believe that what they constructed—the European project—is dead in the water. That is not to say that we have not got an important job to do in trying to find the elements of the way forward, but massive unemployment and low growth have led to the overwhelming rejection of the constitution.
	The origins of the European Union—I hope that this is a constructive view—lie in the League of Nations. In the 1920s, on seeing the catastrophic holocaust of the first world war, Monsieur Briand, who worked with Jean Monnet, resolved that he would try to prevent anything like that from happening again. Nobody can dispute that that was an honourable motive.
	Let us consider the second world war. My father was killed 61 years ago in Normandy. The plain fact is that those of us who suffered, if I can put it that way, from that sacrifice by those young boys have to accept that there was an understandable reason why, in the aftermath of the second world war, people like Sir Edward Heath and other distinguished members of Conservative Cabinets over 20 years, who themselves had been part and parcel of that war, thought that the idea of a European union was the way forward.

Wayne David: I notice that the hon. Gentleman supports what the hon. Member for Woodspring said, but does he believe none the less that Britain should have associate membership, not full membership, of the European Union?

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and I tabled a series of amendments to the European Scrutiny Committee report that appeared just before the general election—amendments to which the hon. Gentleman subscribed—and some of those called for associated status. It is all there on the record, so I do not need to repeat it today.
	The real problem now is not the constitution itself. The constitution is dead. The real problem is the existing treaties. What has given rise to the over-regulation, the lack of democracy, the double-speak and the inability to produce policies—foreign policy and so on—for Europe that are constructive and stable? The short answer is that the whole project is filled with contradictions and riddled with double-speak. No wonder the people of Europe have looked at that failed project, with its high unemployment and low growth, and concluded that they cannot live with it any more. We must address the existing treaties, which have given rise to all these problems, to restore democracy in Europe and to the nation state and, irrespective of the Whip, to the House as well. The only thing that has driven all the failed attempts to get the issue straight since 1990, and since the Single European Act 1987, is that the whipping system has insisted that Members do what they are told, keep their mouths shut and carry on as if nothing has happened. As it happens, it did not happen, and it will not happen now. The fortunate truth is that truth has now prevailed. The movement towards examining the basis of the Single European Act onwards includes Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and the constitution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said unequivocally, as far as I can recall, that we had to have a debate. I would prefer a decision. Now is the time when the British people—certainly from the Opposition Benches and those whom we represent—would expect us to be able to say that we want to have a Europe that is stable. We know that if Europe implodes as a result of the chaos that could come from the continuation of ridiculous policies and failed projects, there is more danger in the instability and the tension that could come from that than there is from having a good and settled discussion as we move forwards.
	It will not be a matter only of debate. I wrote a pamphlet entitled "Associated but not Absorbed", in which I pointed out that other nation states, in my opinion, would tend to follow us if we took a lead. It is down to the Government to do that, but I do not think that they will. I am therefore heartened that it appears that we, the Opposition, are now re-evaluating many of the things which previously were regarded as off limits. We are listening and I believe that changes are about to occur, but I would like to see a decision. I would not like simply a debate. We need to go back to what is effectively the Common Market and, at the same time, political co-operation. It will be something that is perhaps a bit more than the Common Market but it will probably be less than the Single European Act.

Chris Bryant: There may be some truth in that. We should not be too ideological in this debate. I am not entirely convinced, as I often am not by my hon. Friend's arguments.
	The hon. Member for Stone said that he believed that the votes in France and the Netherlands showed that the elites of Europe had been rejected. I do not understand that argument. It is clear that the French and the Dutch took a view on the constitutional treaty and on a range of other issues. I do not suppose that there will be a full analysis for many years. Whether the French people and the Dutch people were specifically taking a view on the elites of Europe, whoever they may or may not be, I do not know.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke rather curiously—perhaps with a loose tongue—about the empires of Europe. He seemed to conceive of the EU as another empire in the model of Charlemagne or Napoleon. There is a substantial difference between an empire that is created by war and subjugation and co-operation between member states, which is precisely what the constitutional treaty was arguing for. That is an important distinction. I hope that he will not slip back to his conception of the EU when, I suspect, he returns to these issues in a future debate, or whenever he opens his mouth in the Chamber.
	I know that I am meant to be profoundly depressed today. I am a pro-European and argued the case for the constitutional treaty. I argued for us not having a referendum and then I argued for us having a referendum when we decided that we were having a referendum. I know that because John Humphrys told me and the whole country that all pro-Europeans should now be very depressed. He said that Europe was in meltdown. He added that Italy would almost certainly leave the euro, with many senior politicians demanding that, saying that their country should abandon the euro and return to the lira.
	I do not believe one part of what John Humphrys said in that context and I do not feel depressed. I accept that the French and Dutch voted against the draft constitutional treaty. That means that, at best, the treaty is on a life support system. I suspect that it will be shut down in the near future, but I do not accept that my entire pro-European argument is founded on this particular document. In principle, many of us believe that it is a good thing for Britain to play a role at the heart of Europe. It is our destiny to be an intrinsic part of Europe. We should not be on the sidelines like Norway nor should we be in the marginalia of European history, as the hon. Member for Stone would argue.
	It is important that we are at the heart of Europe, but that is not intrinsically associated with the future of the constitutional treaty. Indeed, many of us were sceptical from the very beginning about whether the term "constitution" should have been used. Parts of the document were subject to negotiation between different countries. When the European Union Bill was introduced before the general election, many of us said on Second Reading that there were things that we wanted to change. None the less, there was a negotiation between 25 different countries and it was probably the best package that we could get.
	In the Chamber and elsewhere, I argued with Opposition Members that the draft treaty was a very good document for Britain that showed how well we had done diplomatically. I am delighted that the French agree with that argument, as 40 per cent. of people who voted no said that they did so because they believed that the European treaty would better for Britain than for France. People who argue that the constitutional treaty is on a life support system and that the pro-European ideal must die have given a premature verdict. There is a fundamental choice. Many hon. Members have said that this is a significant moment with an historic choice to be made, but that choice is not the one that has been presented to us. It is a choice between a pragmatic and patriotic adherence to Europe and an ideological attitude towards Europe.

Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning). She can get back into her teapot for a few minutes longer.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would merely say that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton used that phrase against me a few months ago when you were in the Chair. In all humility, Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for using such language. [Interruption.] I urge the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to restrain herself for a few more moments, as I am still trying to answer the question that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) asked about federalism.
	It is dangerous to use the word "federalism" in debates about Europe without being precise about its meaning. Different European countries have different federal structures. France is a federal country and Spain has asymmetric devolution. For some people, federalism means subsidiarity and taking decisions at a level as close as possible to the people affected. For others, it means trying to bind everyone together into a single unity. It is therefore important that we use the word "federalism" with care.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton must surely be given the opportunity to make the intervention that has been burning within her heart for many ideological months.

Chris Bryant: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the hope that he will bring us back to the subject and explain when he was first told about the debate.

Philip Davies: I shall stick to the subject of the debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned subsidiarity, which appears in the Government motion. I understand that that means that decisions should be made at the most local level. Does he therefore agree that the best way to ensure that decisions are so made is for all decisions to be made in the House, not in Brussels?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in part, like the curate's egg. The transparency of the Council is entirely up to the Council, which could decide that it wants to operate on the basis of transparency without a treaty. However, if the Council were to implement a provision for member states' Parliaments to play a role, when the first problem arose, one of the member states would go to court, which is why a new treaty would be necessary. The difficulty is that many of the changes that all hon. Members want cannot be implemented without a new treaty. It may be a case of, "The treaty is dead. Long live the treaty."
	The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and I might also be able to agree on the ability of member states to leave the EU. As he knows, there is no current provision for any member state to leave the EU. If a member state held a general election and decided to leave the EU, it would probably just do it and pick up the pieces afterwards. It would, of course, be more sensible to introduce a process of negotiation, which the treaty provides for, whereby a member state could leave the EU, if it chose to do so. That process should probably take place under QMV rather than a process of unanimity, which is currently the probable system. It is another area in which treaty change would be necessary to proceed with something that nearly everybody in the British body politic agrees is a good idea.
	Most people probably agree that the European Commission's powers should be more clearly delineated. I used to work for the BBC in Brussels, which is Conservative Members' two major bogeys in one. When I worked in Brussels, although the Commission had no direct power to determine whether the BBC licence fee was state aid, it chose to interfere fairly regularly because that was the thrust of the treaties. The European Commission's role should be more clearly delineated, which would be in the Commission's interest and our interest. It would also help to address the democratic deficit and some people's lack of understanding of how Europe works. Again, treaty change is necessary to achieve that goal.
	Poland and Spain liked the voting system in the Nice treaty. Some people wondered whether the new system of double majority voting would be accepted in Spain, because it put Poland and Spain in a less advantageous position and the UK in a stronger position. That system must be changed, but, again, it is written into the Nice treaty, so, again, treaty change is necessary.
	A number of hon. Members have mentioned the number of Commissioners. The EU Commission was unwieldy when there were 15 Commissioners, but we must be inventing jobs for people now that there are 25. If any further increases occur, it will be practically impossible for the Commission to maintain any sense of corporate responsibility. We must move to a position in which the Commissioner works for the whole of the European Commission rather than for the individual member state that put them there. I know that that is the basic principle on which Commissioners are theoretically appointed, but sometimes it does not feel like that.

John Maples: Is not the problem that the Commission has powers of its own, including the sole power to initiate legislation? If the Commission were more subservient to the European Council and the Council of Ministers, the Commissioners' nationalities would not be a problem because it would be more like a civil service. One of the problems with the constitution was that it made the Commission more powerful, which would have provided individual countries with a greater incentive to ensure that they had a player on the Commission.

Chris Bryant: I am hesitant to give way, because the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) just asked whether I was he still speaking. I shall conclude my speech in the near future, but first I shall give way.

Chris Bryant: I shall not give way, because Conservative Members are saying, "Please don't give way to him". I believe that that is because they want to be rude to me, not him.
	A new Member, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), advanced the extension of the Conservatives' ideological position. He called for a referendum on whether we should remain in the European Union. He did not reveal whether he would argue that Britain should leave the EU—[Interruption.] Yes, he would argue that Britain should come out of the EU. It is good that some Conservative Members are finally coming out of the closet on the matter.
	We should acknowledge our debt to the EU. Europe, not alone but with NATO, has brought peace to a warring continent. It has extended human rights in a way that many people would not have thought possible in the dictatorships of Spain, Portugal, Greece or the eastern bloc. It has made possible a shared market where many can share in the prosperity that was once enjoyed by only a few European countries. It has also enabled freedom of movement so that one in four British people take a European holiday every year.
	I believe that, in 100 years, we will not bemoan today as a terrible date for Europe but think that Europe still has a long way to go.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on his maiden speech, which was very impressive, indeed—[Interruption.] Yes, I did agree with much of it. It was confident and competent. Although it is the custom not to intervene on maiden speeches, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have dealt with any such interventions very readily and brushed them off with ease. He has a significant future ahead in the House and his reputation goes somewhat before him. I greatly enjoyed listening to his fine speech.
	The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Robert Jackson, who latterly joined this side of the House, came over for specific political reasons, but I did not agree with him on any of them. He obviously did not move very far to the left; in any case, he certainly did not reach me. He moved over specifically on account of his support for the EU and his support for the war. I cannot remember the other issues—[Hon. Members: "Tuition fees."] Yes, tuition fees. I clearly remember not agreeing with a word he said, but there we are. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his enjoyable maiden speech.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is no longer in the Chamber, but I was impressed by the fact that he had read Erich Fromm's book "Fear of Freedom". I read it in my youth, and another book by the same author entitled "The Sane Society". As presently organised, the EU is not a sane society, and we ought to try and make it saner in the future.
	I welcomed the no votes in France and Holland, as they presage a new beginning. We must not pretend that the verdicts were passed simply by the people, as specific sections of those societies voted against the constitution—working people, socialists, young people, and trade union members. In other words, it was people of the left who voted no as a specific rejection of neoliberalism. They rejected the deflation of the eurozone, and they objected to the drive towards a world of unconstrained market forces. Many of them when interviewed said so specifically, and I agree with them.
	People in France and Holland have seen unemployment rise to unprecedented levels in the post-war era, while growth has weakened. In fact, in the last quarter of last year, the economies of Italy and Germany contracted, while welfare state provision has been salami sliced and future pensions threatened. Moreover, the word "reform" has appeared again and again. In the past, that word had a progressive flavour. In 1832, it meant increasing democracy and the power of people over their Governments, and that Governments had more power over their economies.
	Nowadays, reform seems to mean handing back power to the market and away from people and their elected Governments. I do not accept that. That trend is most obvious in the eurozone, and many people believe that the post-war social democracy that worked so well across the whole of Europe is now under threat.
	The crisis goes deeper than a mere rejection of the constitution. People are increasingly aware that the direction being taken by the EU is not what ordinary working people want. They are saying no to the broad drift of Europe. They want a different Europe—the sort of Europe that I want too.
	I supported enlargement precisely because I thought that it would provoke the sort of difficulty that I have described and bring matters to a head. Two of my colleagues on this side of the House who take a Eurosceptic view voted against the Nice treaty on the grounds that it was pro-European. I voted in favour of it, because I thought that enlargement would weaken the EU's central core, against which we have railed for so long.
	Indeed, one of the last speeches made in this House by Sir Edward Heath—who, as a matter of fact, used to sit in the place occupied by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party—was against enlargement. He thought that it was impossible for countries with very different economies to merge in a single economy. He wanted a deeper and stronger western European alliance—what one could consider to be the old core Europe. I think that he was right. Retaining the old Europe strongly controlled from the centre meant that member states' economies had to be very similar. I think that it will be impossible to bond 25 separate countries into one economic unit and, given Turkey's possible accession to the EU, the number may be even greater.
	We must reassert democratic control by elected Governments over governance by right-wing bankers and eurocrats in the European Commission and the European Central Bank. Interestingly, after the French referendum decision, the French President replaced former Prime Minister Raffarin with Dominic de Villepin. The new Prime Minister is allegedly a Gaullist, or at least his Gaullism is stronger than his economic liberalism. He is committed to the state—l'état—which he sees as being above the market. That represents a significant change in French politics. He may not remain in post for very long, but his appointment at least represents a shift back towards Gaulllism rather than towards economic liberalism.
	De Villepin is a true conservative and not a liberal. The posters in the no campaign across Europe urged people to say no to liberalism. In this context, the word liberalism does not mean slightly left of centre. It is used in the sense of economic liberalism.

Kelvin Hopkins: The constitution was a consolidation of earlier treaties to provide one treaty that covered all aspects of EU arrangements. Indeed, I have suggested in previous debates that there should be two treaties—one for the eurozone countries and one for the whole of Europe, so that we could separate the eurozone component. On that basis I might be more sympathetic to the proposal, although I am not saying that I would vote for it. If one could adopt the constitution without implicitly accepting Maastricht and the Single European Act I should be much happier about it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Well, there is one, and we listened to the hon. Gentleman and agreed with him, but not on this point.
	Whether people believe in competition or not, it is wrong that a country should sign up to a constitution that forbids competition being overruled. Under the constitution, it must be free and undistorted, as stated in article I-3 of the constitution, judiciable by the European Court of Justice. Of course, the entire constitution has primacy over the laws of member states.
	Whether the French or anyone else vote for a socialist Government in the future, they will come up against that fact, in the constitution, which forbids the creation of a socialist economy and society. From a right-wing perspective, those of us who believe in the free market find much to object to in the new powers over economic and employment policy. From our different perspectives, we both believe that such matters should not be decided in advance in a constitution, but should be left to future electorates to decide through the democratic system.
	A proper constitution, like the American one, is a boxing ring—a set of rules—into which people get to fight it out according to the democratic process. Once those decisions are removed from an electorate and entrenched in a constitution, there is less democracy, not more. That is why the French and the Dutch voted against the constitution.
	The Government have retreated into a hope for European economic reform. I hope that they have told their Members of the European Parliament about that, because they recently voted against the working time directive opt-out in defiance of their Government. Labour MEPs do not believe that working hours should be set by national Parliaments. They want all such matters transferred upwards to the European Union.
	Then there is the Lisbon process, which we all remember being launched five years ago. We also remember what the Prime Minister said about it. It marked
	"a sea change in European economic thinking. It points Europe in a new direction . . . The Lisbon European Council represents a turning point in Europe's approach to economic and social policy."—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 21–22.]
	It did nothing of the sort. Many reports since then, including some from the British Treasury, have shown that nothing has changed. The only hard-edged proposal to come out of the Lisbon process is for the services directive, and that has been abandoned as an unsuccessful and futile bribe to the French electorate.
	By all means let the Government promote economic reform, but it is essentially a matter for each country. If the French want to opt out of the world economy to have a protectionist system, let them do so. It is rather odd that the supreme aim of British foreign policy is to insist on reforming our business competitors. In return for struggling to reform the French and German labour markets, we face a blizzard of job-destroying and business-destroying regulations. We pay nearly £4 billion a year in an annual tribute only to be told what to do. We cannot even suggest the obvious reform in Europe, which is to get out of the euro. It is still Labour party policy—official Government policy—that we should join the euro and be submitted to the same rigours of economic policy as the wretched Germans.
	The point is this: even if we succeed in magically transforming the entire economy of Europe, it does not solve the problems identified in the Laeken declaration—the alienation, the gap between rulers and ruled, the fantastic complexity of it all which the constitution has, of course, made worse. I have here the existing treaties—bad enough at 184 pages of pretty complex provisions, but nothing like as bad as the Foreign Office version of the constitution, which runs to 511 pages even though the draftsmen were told to reform it, so in fact that is the simplified version. In the Convention I made the modest proposal that, if our aim was to simplify Europe, we might start by attacking the acquis communautaire. Of course, my proposal was ignored.
	In fact, the position is getting worse. As I said, I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, which last year examined 1,080 new bits of European regulation—more directives, more laws, more regulation adding to the acquis communautaire. There is no appetite or drive for simplification, and if there is, it is not shared by the Government. It is all talk. My group of friends in the democracy forum in the Convention tabled specific amendments to prune the European institutions, to reduce the budget and to get the institutions to listen to the European Court of Auditors. Not one of our proposals was supported by the British Government representative on the Convention.

Wayne David: Last week I went to Brussels, not to speak to Members of the European Parliament or to members of the Commission, but to a group of young people drawn from Belgium, the Netherlands and France. The purpose of my visit was to hear from them at first hand their views about Europe, the European Union and the referendums in France and in the Netherlands.
	Most of those young people had voted no in the referendums. When I pressed them on that there was no simple and straightforward answer by any means. Many of those young people felt alienated from the political system in their respective countries. Many of them also felt alienated from political elites. That was not only at a European level, but also at a national level. Many did not relate to politics in the traditional definition of that term. That alienation found expression in voting no in the referendums.
	Many of those young people felt aggrieved by the policies being pursued by their respective Governments. There was some personal hostility to President Chirac and Prime Minister Raffarin. There was no uniformity in terms of what the young people were rebelling against but there were certain European policies to which they did not relate, understand or see in their best interests. Those sentiments also led those young people to vote no in the referendums. Let us just say that what happened among young people in France and in the Netherlands defies simplistic analysis—it is a complex phenomenon. What happened is not, however, peculiar to young people in France and in the Netherlands. We must be careful not to say that it is all down to the EU because people feel alienated from it. The malaise goes much deeper than that, and we must be honest in appreciating that.
	Although there was a difference of opinion between the young people whom I met about why they voted no, there was no widespread opposition to the idea of European co-operation and association. Many recognised that the EU had contributed to the fact that we have had peace in the European continent for the longest time in its history. They recognised that, appreciated that, and wanted that achievement to be preserved.
	They recognised also that on issues such as the environment it was necessary in the modern world for national governments to co-operate and not simply tackle the problems of environmental despoliation nationally. They understood that there was a need for European and transnational co-operation generally on such an issue.
	A few of them recognised, too, that there is a need in a global economy, where increasingly we see trade blocs being established, for the EU, on behalf of the people of Europe, to have a powerful voice in organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. Above all else, although there was a raft of reservations, they recognised that people in different countries in the EU see themselves as not located in one particular or narrowly defined labour market. They understood that people see themselves as perhaps having a choice to work in their own region, their own country or elsewhere in the continent of Europe. They understand that the single European market has helped to bring that about. We are seeing more and more young people travelling across the EU and across the globe, taking advantage of the new opportunities that are opening up.
	I took some encouragement as someone who believes in European co-operation, in which I believe our best interests lie. The young people to whom I spoke were not embracing a narrow, inward looking nationalism. They were groping towards a future new definition of their involvement in Europe. That is something which this country needs to take into account.
	I was intrigued by the comments of Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). There was a significant elaboration of Conservative policy today, the likes of which we have not witnessed for some time. If I analysed the hon. Gentleman's comments correctly, he was questioning not the usual things that Conservative Members question such as the extension of qualified majority voting but a fundamental cornerstone of the European Union—the single European market. In the past, many Conservatives called for a rapid completion of the single European market, and Labour Members are doing so now. However, the hon. Gentleman called for a re-examination and unpicking of the whole ethos of the single European market. That has profound implications, because the single European market is the most important part of the European Union. It has proved to be of great economic benefit to the UK, let alone other countries.
	In contradistinction to Opposition Members—I am sure that they will make their arguments more vehemently in the coming months—Labour Members in association with members of other parties who wish to join us will make a positive restatement of the case for European co-operation. It is incumbent on us, however, to say clearly that we do not want a centralised Europe or a European superstate. We do not want what some continental Europeans call a federal Europe. We want a Europe based on individual nation states working in co-operation and harmony. Where there is commonality, there must be deeper co-operation. If that is our starting point we can begin to hold a long overdue debate with the British people. If we are honest with ourselves we will accept that there is a great deal of misapprehension, confusion and, without wishing to be patronising, ignorance among the British people about what the European Union is and what it could be. We must go back, as I said, to basics, and talk about what European co-operation involves. The fine detail of the constitutional treaty or the ramifications of directives and regulations are not important, but there is a basic necessity for us to work together as European people with mutual self-interest. That fundamental case has to be made in the UK, and our presidency of the EU provides us with the ideal opportunity to do so.
	As well as providing an opportunity to make the case for Europe, the British presidency will allow us to consider what happens once the treaty receives its official death knell. It is important that we are not locked into the view that it is a take it or leave it document. Some members of the European Commission have hinted that we might accept it through the back door, but that would be quite wrong. On the other hand, some believe that the whole enterprise is dead and the treaty is best forgotten. We should be honest and accept that there were good things in the constitutional treaty, which is why many of us were prepared to argue vigorously for a yes vote in a British referendum. It is therefore incumbent on us to look carefully at which parts of the constitutional treaty can be implemented in a constructive and consensual way.
	I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary suggested on Monday that we could focus on increasing the involvement of national Parliaments in the European decision-making process. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on that matter.
	I must be honest and say that I would have liked the stipulations on national Parliaments in the constitutional treaty to have been stronger, but I nevertheless recognised that it was a good starting point. We must build goodwill among national Governments and, indeed, members of the European Commission, so that when the Commission floats ideas on a European level, the initial stages of legislation come to national Parliaments for consideration. That does not happen now because, as the right hon. Member for Wells knows, much of the European legislation that comes to this House, and to the European Scrutiny Committee in particular, has already travelled some way down the line.
	The draft constitutional treaty proposed that as soon as the European Commission had an idea—a law in gestation—it would be considered by national Parliaments. I want national Parliaments to continue the process of extending co-operation at a European level through organisations such as COSAC, so that they can exercise a collective voice as well as their individual voices.

Ian Paisley: As I sat and listened to the debate, I was reminded of what happened in the House, of which I was a Member, when we voted ourselves into the Common Market. I remember one incident in particular. The Tory Government depended on the votes of the small Liberal party but Labour colleagues thought that Liberal Members would remain faithful to them. The leader of the Liberal party was sitting in the seat directly in front of me and, at the end of the debate, a Labour Whip—I shall not name him—took his Order Paper and smacked the Liberal leader over the head. The House was a bedlam. That was our entrance into the Common Market.
	It is strange to note that people on both sides have changed their views. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) was a Member of European Parliament, of which I was also a Member. The first time I went to Europe, the Labour Benches were filled with people who were anti the Market. The Tory party was divided. Some members were against the Market and others wanted it as it was. However, that has changed over the years.
	For the first time, everyone in the United Kingdom has to face the fact that the European Union has not been what the politicians painted it to be—Conservative, Labour and other politicians painted it to be something different. The reality for those of us who sat in the European Parliament for many years—I sat there for a quarter of a century—and watched the proceedings was that certain allies came together in the government of the Common Market. They were intent on doing what they wanted their way. I believe that the people of Europe have realised that and they are saying, "We will not be dictated to by the Government and elite of our country. We are going to show them that we have strong feelings about the European Union."
	That feeling was manifested in the French. Who would ever have thought that the French would turn against the EU? Who would have thought that the Netherlands would turn against it? However, they have. We are now faced with deciding whether to heed those people's message or try to stop the people of other countries from giving their message. I believe that the United Kingdom and its people should have the opportunity to give its judgment on the matter.
	It was convenient to have a referendum in the offing during the election campaign. It was a good way of putting off consideration. The EU was not an issue in the campaign because those who were asked about it simply said, "Oh, we're going to have a referendum", thus putting it on the back burner. However, the time has come for this nation to have an opportunity to express itself on the issue.
	I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who told us—another hon. Member has already repeated it—that the Union was lying there and no one knew whether it was dead or alive but the machinery was working. He said that everyone would come and decide whether to switch it off. Do we want our country to be governed by such a Government? People are looking for a Government who know what people need and who will honestly face up to the wishes of the people and to what they promised the people.
	It seems in this debate that, if someone speaks against what is happening in Europe, they are accused of wanting to get their country out of Europe. I fully believe that there needs to be co-operation between the states in Europe. We all need that co-operation. Anyone who has read European history knows that it is necessary for the European states and their national Governments and Parliaments get together to pursue their own mutual interests and to deal with the issues that affect their people. I am all for sovereign Governments co-operating with other sovereign Governments on the things that they can do together to secure the best way forward for the people, but I do not believe that a superstate should be created.
	Opponents who take a different view must realise that there are those in Europe who want to create a superstate. Federalism as we know it means handing over certain powers to a central body. If the people who hand over those powers want to recall them, they can do so, but the superstate then says, "We will give you a little bit, we will give you something more, but we will dish out what we want and keep the powers that we want." By doing that, it robs the Parliaments that make up the nations of Europe of real power.
	The people of Europe know nothing about a little village in my bailiwick called Ahoghill. Some of the Ministers from here who visit me say, "Ian, what about this village, Ahoghill?" I say, "You could go down and ask about it and you will never find it." The decisions affecting that village should be made as near to the people as possible. That someone in an office in Brussels should have the right to say, "That will go there and that will go there" is nonsense. There would bound to be opposition from the people. The people need to be heard. We will have respect in this nation only when the people can say that the politicians are doing what they said they would do, but we in this House cannot do what we promised if there is a superstate out there that can call the tune for us all. I do not want to dance to the European tune. I want to dance to the nation's tune. We all have to face up to that.
	I have heard you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do not want long speeches. I am reminded of the apostle Paul, who in a certain part of scripture kept saying, "Finally, brethren." I am not going to do that. I am going to sit down now.

Mark Hendrick: I cannot speak for the motives of the voters in France and the Netherlands in their rejection of the constitution. I am sure that many voters in both countries agree with much of what was on offer, just as they obviously disagreed with other elements. I would never assume, however, that the no votes in those countries mean that all the voters disagreed with everything proposed in the constitution.
	The decision-making framework designed for the six original member states has evolved through successive treaties into what is clearly an unwieldy set of procedures, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) so aptly put it. Nevertheless, the streamlining offered by the constitution is a step in the right direction.
	If it is nothing else, the EU is a family of democratic countries committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a state intended to replace existing states, but it is bigger than any other international organisation. The EU is unique. Its member states have set up common institutions, to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at a European level. We call that pooling of sovereignty European integration, which is what the whole process is about. Clearly, it is what Opposition Members are most opposed to.
	The right hon. Member for Wells, who is no longer in the Chamber, described himself as a genuine reformer. In fact, I think that he and some other Opposition Members are not reformers, but wreckers. I shall be blunt: some people are rejoicing about the no votes in France and Holland not because they disagree with the constitutional treaty proposals but because they disagree with the consolidation in the new treaty of all the other treaties going back to the treaty of Rome and the origins of the EU. So when hon. Members talk about the people of France and Holland having spoken, some mean that they genuinely believe that all those treaties should be revoked and we should return to a Europe in which member states are not joined in a common union.

Mark Hendrick: I accept the hon. Lady's interpretation, but I have heard differing views, not least in today's debate. Not everybody in her party takes that view, in the same way as not every Labour Member agrees with the Government's position in supporting the constitution or, for that matter, joining the single European currency.
	The EU deals with many other issues of direct importance to our everyday lives, including citizens' rights; ensuring freedom, security and justice; job creation; regional development; environmental protection; and, of course, making globalisation work for everybody. Europe and society need rules. Globalisation needs rules, which is why we have the World Trade Organisation. Like many other Labour Members, I am not in favour of many of its rules and the way in which it operates, but we accept the need for rules.
	I genuinely believe that the European Union has delivered half a century of stability, peace and prosperity. It has helped to raise living standards, built a single Europe-wide market, launched a single European currency and strengthened Europe's voice in the world. It has brought unity in diversity. The continent has many traditions and languages, but it also has shared values. The EU defends those values and fosters co-operation, promoting unity while respecting and preserving diversity. In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century it will be even more necessary that every European citizen co-operate with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity, tolerance and solidarity.
	To refer again to the intervention of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I have no hang-ups about the terminology—whether the document is called a treaty or a constitution—but we would not be having this debate if it had simply been called a treaty. People's hang-ups about the word "constitution" make it much more difficult to agree to the document, especially for people from the UK, which has no written constitution. However, it has been called a constitution, and simplifying the overlapping series of treaties and protocols that provide the current legal basis for the EU is important. It is important to enhance and streamline the decision-making procedures of the Union now that 10 countries have joined the previous 15. It is also important to enable citizens to feel much closer to the EU by giving national Parliaments more say in how it is conducted. That is what the constitution does.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House for the first time, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). Your predecessor encouraged us to be brief and I shall be relatively brief in accordance with his advice.
	I am particularly pleased to speak in a debate on such a vital topic at such a pivotal stage in European relations. I feel honoured to be in the company of such distinguished architects of the Conservative party's position on European subjects, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I am pleased to say that he is one of my constituents and he chose to vote in my constituency rather than his own. I am only sorry to say that he is not with us at the moment to hear me praise him.
	I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has been such a champion of the position that I share in respect of the constitutional Convention. I am also pleased to participate in the same debate as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), whose position in the House I have followed since I was a small boy. Again, I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say so. I also applaud the eloquence, wit and style of the maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey).
	It is indeed a great honour for me to stand here today to represent the Ludlow constituency. Ludlow is my home town and that of my forebears. In fact, one Dr. Dunne, who practised in Ludlow in the early 18th century, was a pioneering exponent of electric shock therapy. I can give a categoric assurance to the House that I did not use such techniques in securing my seat.
	I join a long tradition of local Members representing Ludlow. To my knowledge, with the sole exception of one individual since 1885, the seat has been held by local people: from the Windsor-Clive descendants of Robert Clive of India to Sir Jasper More, one of the most distinguished post-war Members to represent the seat to, latterly, Christopher Gill, who would, I am sure, have made a forceful contribution if he were still here—some Conservatives Members may remember him with somewhat mixed emotions—to my immediate predecessor, Matthew Green, who hon. Members on other Benches are, I am sure, surprised is not still here.
	Matthew was an energetic MP in the constituency, where he is much liked and still casts a large shadow. I hope to be able to match that, at least in part. In Parliament, he was an able spokesman on youth affairs for the Liberal Democrat party and became a knowledgeable champion of local housing need. He was rightly proud of representing Ludlow, as indeed am I.
	I have represented Ludlow town centre on South Shropshire district council for the past few years, so I have a modest experience of such things, but I also come to the House with more than 25 years of varied business experience, the benefits of which I hope to bring to the proceedings of this House.
	I also feel a strong sense of public duty in coming to the House and have a family tradition of such service, albeit from a rather catholic political background. My great great grandfather sat on the Liberal Benches. My grandfather sat on the Conservative Benches. After the second world war, my great uncle sat briefly on the Labour Benches before he did a very wise thing and crossed to the Conservative Benches, in contrast to the previous Member for Wantage, about whom we heard earlier.
	Ludlow is one of the largest and most beautiful rural constituencies in England. The constituency stretches roughly 40 miles, from the Welsh border west of Bishop's Castle to the villages east of Bridgnorth, abutting the South Staffordshire constituency, which some hon. Members may get to know well over the next few weeks. The constituency is almost 20 miles north to south, from the towns of Broseley and Much Wenlock on the northern boundary across to Church Stretton, which nestles in the Shropshire hills, south to Burford on the River Teme.
	For Members who do not know the area, the Shropshire hills have rightly been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. They have been described as the Switzerland of England and are also known locally as the blue remembered hills—especially apt following last month's general and county council election results in Shropshire. If you will indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this brings to mind A. E. Housman's description from "A Shropshire Lad":
	"From Clee to heaven the beacon burns
	The shires have seen it plain
	From north and south the sign returns
	And beacons burn again."
	Ludlow itself is a fine Georgian town built on a mediaeval town footprint, with one of the most complete surviving sets of mediaeval walls in not only this country, but Europe. I am pleased to declare an interest in that because I expect to become a trustee of the newly established Town Walls Trust, which was set up to fund their restoration at a meeting last evening. Latterly, the small market town of Ludlow is perhaps better known for its well-deserved reputation for good food, which is actively promoted by the food and drink festival each September. Not for Ludlow the uniformity of the nation's high streets. We boast four independent butchers and four master bakers. Until very recently, we had three restaurants with four Michelin stars between them, which might be known to some hon. Members. We also have two greengrocers and specialist cheese, chocolate and organic produce shops, all of which support local producers. If I may say so, the only thing that some say that we lack is a modern bookshop.
	Although the constituency is known as Ludlow, its largest town is Bridgnorth, which is another attractive town straddling the River Severn with a historic heritage. Bridgnorth lays claim to being the aluminium capital of the country with some 600 people employed in its two rolling mill plants, which recently attracted tens of millions of pounds of inward investment. That is an important example of manufacturing excellence in my constituency that needs to maintain its global competitiveness. Bridgnorth also has several suppliers to the motor industry, some of which are suffering following the collapse of MG Rover, to which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) referred earlier.
	Overall, the constituency's economy reflects its geography. There is a strong reliance on a healthy farming and agricultural sector that is now coming to terms with the new single farm payment and the complex cross-compliance regime. As I have mentioned, there is a vital manufacturing sector, some interesting technology companies are emerging and there is a growing tourism and service sector.
	However, all is not rosy. Although we live in a beautiful area, we suffer from the deprivation that can affect sparsely populated places. Immigration was an issue during the recent election, but the immigration in my part of Shropshire has been mostly from the black country and the home counties. We welcome those coming to live in Shropshire, many of whom have retired, but the consequences of that have included rapidly rising house prices and an ageing population. Local people, especially the young, have difficulty continuing to live where they have grown up. We also have declining school rolls and pressure on our community hospitals.
	That brings me briefly on to the subject of the debate. The European constitution was of great concern to the people whom I met in the run-up to the general election, in contrast to several remarks made by Labour Members. My constituents' main worry was a genuine fear of greater political integration, with more regulations imposed by a remote bureaucracy over which there is scant democratic control. There was genuine confusion about the Government's position on the matter, and I regret to say that following the Foreign Secretary's remarks earlier this week and those of the Prime Minister today, they will be none the wiser. As a new Member, I wish to help the Government out of their predicament. I would be more than happy to arrange a local referendum in Ludlow on the European constitution, the result of which I am confident would give the Government a clear steer to help them make up their mind.
	There are real worries about Europe in my constituency, from the hill farmers on the Welsh borders to the sugar beet producers in the east whose livelihoods are threatened by the common agricultural policy reforms that are now being implemented and, in the case of sugar, as we heard earlier, are under consideration. We also cannot afford to export more of our manufacturing base. Such matters require a light regulatory touch, not more costly directives from Brussels that try to impose a continental social model on our already overburdened employers.
	Our Government have been consistently wrong about Europe and they are in danger of making another strategic blunder. They should declare the EU constitution dead and do everything in their power to lead a debate in Europe on the real reform that is needed to bring back to nation states the powers of self-determination. I look forward to pressing the Government on that and other issues in the years to come, and to standing up for the people of Ludlow in this Chamber.

Angela Browning: I do not buy that argument. Those of us who are democratically elected to this House are answerable to the people who elect us. Our parliamentary system is such that we should be answerable: we should not send responsibility to another group of people, whether they are elected or not. I take very seriously my duty to the people I represent. I believe that I should be accountable to them and that Ministers should be accountable to me. The EU goes against everything for which the democratic process stands.
	To return to my argument about accountability, honesty and saying what direction we should take, I have no problem with people on either side of the House who have for many years expressed a view of what they want from Europe and where it is going that is different from mine. That is part of the democratic debate, which I enjoy both inside and outside the House. However, it is no longer acceptable for any Government or Minister to attempt to deny the objectives and purpose of our relationship with, and membership of, the European Union. We have reached the position where another treaty and more of the same are not acceptable.
	The people of France and of the Netherlands have spoken. I make no difference between their right to express their views and the right of the people of Spain, who have also had a referendum, to express an entirely different view. That is democracy as we understand it. I am concerned not about the people of France, the Netherlands or Spain, but about the rights of the British people, and especially the rights of my constituents. The idea that, in smoke-filled rooms, Ministers and members of councils in private meetings can cobble together some alternative because they know that they will not get the issue past the people in any other way is no longer an option.
	I hope that the Minister will accept from me—a self-proclaimed Eurosceptic—that I understand that he comes from a different point of view and a different philosophy, but I demand of him and of the Government honesty and clarity, and the right for the British people to express their view. If it is the case that this constitution is dead, stuffed or any of the other descriptions we have heard today, we should give the British people a vote on the what our future relationship with the EU will be from here on.
	The idea that we go on without the British people having the right to express a view is wrong. Whatever that view is, it should be recognised. I have not been impressed by the way in which the Government held a referendum in the north-east on the regional assembly. They carried on as if nothing had happened. That is not my idea of a democratic assembly. If the people say no, different action is required. There is a need for a different policy. That is what I call honesty.
	I was impressed and encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, whose maiden speech built in some poetry. I am a great one for finishing off what I say with some poetry or a quotation. Cicero said:
	"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
	Honesty, integrity and openness with the House and with the British people are essential from now on with this issue. If that is not the position, the situation does not bode well either for the people of this country or for the people of Europe.

Nicholas Clegg: I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) that a fork in the road presents itself to us. I am not sure that I agree with her conclusion about where we should go when we encounter that fork. It is obvious that the overwhelming no votes in France and the Netherlands present us with a moment of crisis in a long history of crises in the development of the European Community and the European Union.
	It is somewhat ironic that the crisis seems to have been elicited on the back of a text—this infamous constitution—which by any objective measure is more modest in the changes that it proposes to the function of the EU than many of the treaty provisions that preceded it. I hope that it is not an issue of debate that the Single European Act pooled far greater areas of policy, decision making and sovereignty at EU level than the constitution that we are discussing. Yet the comparative modesty of the constitution seems to have given way to a degree of public anxiety, the depth and breadth of which we have not seen for some time.
	There are many reasons for that. The fact that it was called a constitution was arguably a mistake. It was a grandiloquent mistake that implied that a relatively modest treaty provision was dressed up to be something more than it was. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said at the beginning of the debate, the sheer pace of change in the European community and the EU—one treaty has been replaced by another, almost without pausing for breath, for a decade and a half—has perplexed many voters in many EU countries. I assume it is not a point of great dissent or debate to suggest that we need a prolonged pause for reflection. However, I suspect that as we consider what happens next, that pause will be much longer than many commentators believe.
	What should we do during that pause for reflection? Instinct tells me that this is not just a crisis about the EU but a crisis of domestic politics in the Netherlands, France and, arguably, the UK. What has been lost is not only public confidence in the EU but public confidence in what Governments of all shapes and sizes in many different countries are saying to their electorates about the EU. That strikes me as a crisis of legitimacy and of confidence with much deeper roots than is often appreciated when we exchange blows about the EU and the mechanics of EU decision making. In my constituency and in groups in which I have discussed European integration, I have been struck by fact that there is a hard-core minority that is passionately for and a hard-core minority—invariably, a little bigger, it must be conceded—that is passionately against. The vast majority of people, however, are bewildered, anxious, perplexed and confused by the European Union. They have lost their bearings and do not know in which direction the process is going.
	In this period of reflection, the priority should be not to try to cobble together agreements or relaunch initiatives at EU level, but to try to re-establish in the UK and in the House a clearer understanding, free of prejudice, misunderstanding and misinformation, of what the EU is and what it is not. As the hon. Lady said, that requires a great deal of honesty and consistency. In parenthesis, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that he would like the European Union to become more liberalised, deregulated, looser and dynamic in its economic management. When I was an MEP, a cornerstone of EU economic liberalisation in recent years was the proposal in 2001 for a takeover directive to allow British companies to take over companies in other EU countries more easily. It failed, because a number of Conservative MEPs did not vote for it. At about the same time, the "Everything but Arms" proposal was introduced by the European Commission to open the EU market to agricultural products from about 40 of the poorest nations on the planet. Again, Conservative MEPs resisted that move towards greater liberalisation of agriculture and trade.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I will be as brief as I can. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on his very interesting comments. It is a pity that we did not hear a bit more from him. I offer my heartiest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), who sadly is not in the Chamber. I was pleased to see that, although a good Tory moderniser, he was wearing his tie, socks and shoes. He clearly has his head screwed on and it was good to see the Tories gain that seat.
	It was great to see a Tory gain in Shropshire, and I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) on a fine maiden speech. It is splendid to have someone who is local, who stuck his head above the parapet to become a local councillor and who has good local business contacts and interests. I look forward to working with him closely on local and national issues.
	There is a link between our two constituencies. My hon. Friend mentioned the Windsor-Clives. Robert Clive originally came from Market Drayton, where we have all sorts of jolly occasions because Pézenas in southern France is twinned with it because Clive went there when he was recuperating from India and taught them how to make pork pies. The hon. Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned that "Europe" has become an abused word, but we in Market Drayton are all in favour of trade links: we have a hugely successful Müllers yoghurt factory, producing about 2,000 million pots of yoghurt a year. The fact is, however, that we also now use the word to refer to the new political construct—the European Union.
	To follow up the comments of my other neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the EU was always intended to be a supranational, undemocratic system. Its authors were Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter, an unsung and hugely influential British civil servant. They worked in the League of Nations in the inter-war period and experienced at first hand the failures of that organisation. They mistakenly believed that the single factor most responsible for that failure was the veto in the hands of democratically elected politicians. They conceived a similar organisation, with a Commission, a Court, a Parliament and a Council of Ministers, but operated ultimately through civil servants, in which the democratic veto could be progressively eliminated. They quite deliberately created something that was supposed to be politician-proof.
	The supranational concept has been reaffirmed in recent days by senior officials in the EU. The Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, Margot Wallström, wrote on her website last week:
	"We will probably now see a debate that follows with also interpretation of exactly what kind of 'no' this was."
	Like British Rail's problems with the wrong kind of snow, this Commissioner complains about the wrong kind of no. She went on:
	"Yet there are those who want to scrap the supranational idea. They want the EU to go back to the old purely intergovernmental way of doing things."
	However, the elites simply cannot ignore the voices of the peoples of France and Holland, and the frustrated voice of the British people.
	I was riveted to hear the Minister say that he had to wait for the French Government to decide, but it is the French people who have decided. It is absolutely clear that both the French and the Dutch people have rejected the treaty; and it is quite clear from the polls that the British people, if the Government had honoured their promise, would have rejected the treaty. The elites have got to move on and face up to the fact that there is now a real crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon was absolutely right that there is now a crisis of legitimacy, which the elites ignore at their peril.
	Intergovernmentalism means co-operation with other sovereign nation states, but the key is that it preserves national sovereignty by retaining the right to say no when national interests are affected. The proposed constitution would have topped out the structure that was originally conceived by Monnet and Salter, and effectively put all Government competences in the hands of unelected elites, under qualified majority voting, with a drastic reduction in national vetoes.
	My main drift is that the current system, following successive European treaties, is failing. About three quarters of the new treaty is derived from articles carried over from previous treaties. The current system is simply not working, which is clear if we look at agriculture, for example. I was at the Stafford show last week and heard senior members of the industry saying that, because of the deluge of regulation, they simply could not farm legally any more.
	I am the Opposition spokesman for fishing, and we have recently seen the devastation of our fisheries, and the contrast with sovereign nations such as Norway, the Faroes and Iceland or Canada and the US state of New England could not be more marked. There, they take decisions on a day-to-day basis; here, we have Ministers going bog-eyed tired through three days of negotiations and coming up with a regulation such as that which came before us in European Standing Committee A—on one Monday, we had 887 pages dumped on us for a Tuesday debate. The decisions had already been taken.
	I also have the privilege to sit on the European Scrutiny Committee, which was mentioned earlier in the debate. Our record was debating 78 documents in two minutes. That is not scrutiny, which is why the peoples of Europe are so utterly disillusioned. This is not the way to engage people in politics. It is the exact reverse mirror image of how we used to make law in this place—with open debate on Second Reading, Standing Committees in which every detail could be scrutinised and where interested parties could amend and, above all, repeal law. European law cannot be repealed, which is why the people feel helpless and why we have seen these tremendous no votes. The elites have to wake up to that fact. The people believe that they send us here to make laws and that it is their right to remove real rulers by voting.
	If the constitution is agreed, virtually all competences of Government will pass to unelected Commission members. It will be impossible for constituents in Shropshire to remove their rulers by the exercise of their vote. It is the duty of elected Members to bring those powers back. We must make sure that the laws imposed on our benighted constituents are good ones, that bad laws can be repealed, and that we can be removed if we make bad laws.

Graham Brady: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), and to be back winding up another debate on European policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said, these debates can be somewhat ritualistic, but he was also right to say that things are very different now. Our debates have become more interesting.
	Some excellent speeches have been made, including fine maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the hon. Members for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), for North Shropshire and for Stratford-on-Avon, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) all called for a very new direction to be taken in the EU. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells put it, a new Europe is trying to be born.
	I want to take this opportunity to welcome to his new post the Minister of Europe, although I shall miss his predecessor, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), with whom I had many enjoyable exchanges over recent months. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) to the debate. I suspect that he is only visiting for this one occasion, but I hope that he enjoys it and does not find it too damaging.
	The Minister for Europe opened the debate by talking a great deal about the Conservative party's policies, but he was less forthcoming about where the Government stand. I have enjoyed this debate so much that I am greatly looking forward to the next opportunity to discuss these matters. That will arise immediately before next week's European Council meeting, but it will be even harder then for the Minister to say nothing without looking absurd.
	The people of France and the Netherlands have struck a massive blow for democracy in the past few days. They expressed with great clarity and eloquence the seething anger felt by people across Britain and Europe at Governments who seem increasingly remote and deaf to their concerns. The referendums in those two countries are a clear signal that the age of deference in politics is over, and that people will no longer tolerate political elites ruling without regard for popular opinion.
	Those referendums also sent the clear signal that people are interested more in real solutions than in grand constitutional projects. The test for the Governments of Europe will be how quickly they grasp that new reality, or whether they continue to regard the people with disdain while arrogantly pursuing the same old agenda. So far, the signs are not good.
	The Prime Minister of Luxembourg said:
	"If it's a Yes, we will say, 'On we go', and if it is a No, we will say, 'We continue.'".
	Giscard d'Estaing, one of the constitution's architects, has said that ratification would "obviously" continue, even if France voted no. At today's Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister, on being challenged about the Foreign Secretary's statement on Monday, gave the remarkable response that the statement was clear enough to him, and that that was all that counted. That says it all about this Prime Minister, and about the present Government's attitude. How very revealing that was.
	I do not for a moment want to call the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) a member of the political elite, but he too thinks that the life support will be switched off. However, even he thinks that there is no reason for a fundamental change of direction in the EU.
	Some politicians are preparing to carry on as though nothing has happened. They want to go back to the European project and continue the ratification of an unwanted constitution, either as a whole or by cherrypicking a bit at a time.
	The Minister for Europe appeared to rule that out on 2 June. He said on the Today programme:
	"There is no question of reintroducing the Constitutional treaty by the back door . . . You've got to recognise that some suggest that common sense changes could be introduced at the edges. That denies the reality that this treaty was extremely hard fought over by the 25 members all seeking to advance their national interests. What seems to be common sense in one country, as we've seen over the last couple of days, is judged to be extremely contentious in another. This is a Constitutional treaty which was an extremely interlocked document reflecting the hard negotiations that took place over a number of years."
	He was very clear about that, just a few days ago. However, on Monday, the Foreign Secretary seemed much less certain when he said:
	"If the Commission or the Council were themselves to suggest that we should introduce these things by other means, it would be absurd to put such proposals to a referendum. We ought to agree to them straight away." —[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 995.]

Graham Brady: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman has attended enough of these debates over the past few months to know that our position is clear. We want a more flexible European Union. We believe that we can have an efficient EU with 25, 27 or more members as long as it does less and does it better. We do believe that the constitution must stop now, because that is what the people in France and the Netherlands have demanded. We also believe that we need a more flexible, less regulated and less centralised Europe, and that is something towards which the Government should work.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells made a powerful contribution from the perspective of a former member of the Convention. He debunked the myth that the voting system proposed in the constitution would increase Britain's control over majority voting. Many hon. Members have made it clear that matters cannot continue as they were. The status quo is not a viable option, contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).
	We already know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shares our assessment of the profound economic problems facing the EU. As he wrote in the Financial Times on 10 September 2004,
	"Europe has a special responsibility to rise to the challenge and, starting today, make new commitments on economic reform. This is no time for complacency or consolidation but for pushing forward boldly with liberalisation. This year, the eurozone's growth rate will be half that of the US and Japan."
	He continued:
	"Only by rejecting the old trade-bloc Europe—inward-looking, inflexible and sclerotic—and wholeheartedly embracing a global Europe—reforming, flexible, outward-looking and competitive—will the EU respond to the new challenges of globalisation."
	I could have written the same thing myself. There is wide acceptance that economic reform is essential, but it is only when Europe abandons the constitution and the grandiose dreams of a political Europe that the economic reforms can really take place.
	The Foreign Secretary on Monday, however, could not even tell us where the Government will stand at the Council next week. He said:
	"We will make judgments about our position at next week's summit—based on the statement that I have made today—much nearer the time."—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 995.]
	Well, it is only a week away. We hope that when we have our debate prior to the meeting of the Council next week we will have a clear statement of the Government's negotiating position and what it will press for at the Council.
	Some have a clearer view than the Foreign Secretary, including the hon. Member for Rotherham, who accepted immediately after the Dutch vote that the constitution was dead. They also include Lord Kerr, one of the draftsmen of the constitution who spoke so well in the other place on Monday. He said:
	"A no is a no. An American might add that two noes are a real "no no". I do not for a moment dispute that there is no point whatever in proceeding with a ratification process in this country. Indeed, I cannot understand the motive underlying pressure from Paris, Brussels and Luxembourg for a macabre ritual dance of ratification and referenda to proceed. I see no point in it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 679.]
	Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) whose wise comments on the subject I quote regularly, as she knows, wrote an article that was published in The Birmingham Post a few days ago. She said:
	"The Constitution was an overambitious attempt to consolidate an outdated political and economic vision of Europe. Our mandate was to bring Europe closer to its people—and we ended up alienating them even more . . . It's no good saying that the Constitution was rejected because it was not understood. Opinion polls in France showed that the more the French discussed it, the less they liked it. The same happened last year in Sweden when they voted against joining the euro, despite the campaign having been backed by the political parties, business and the media".
	A wise assessment. If only the hon. Lady could communicate it to her colleagues on the Treasury Bench and get them to understand the reality of the situation.
	Ministers appear unable to accept the truth, or at least to do so in public, but they will have to reveal their hand when they come to the House next week. I hope that then they will understand that, in their no vote on the EU constitution, the people of France and the Netherlands struck a blow for all of us who are fed up with Governments who do not listen, politicians who are out of touch and bureaucracies that are unaccountable. The political elites of Europe are currently in a state of shock. They cannot carry on as before, ignoring the will of the people.
	As Britain prepares to assume the EU presidency, there is an unprecedented opportunity to provide Europe with real leadership, with a new vision that is right for the 21st century. The over-centralised, over-regulated and inward-looking EU that was enshrined in the constitution should be sent to the guillotine. A diverse EU of 25 nations, or more, must have the flexibility to allow each to fulfil its destiny and to respond to the democratic will of its own people. The British Government should have the courage to seize this extraordinary moment in the affairs of Europe and set a new and different course.

Barry Gardiner: I want to make a bit of progress. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the winding-up speeches have been curtailed to allow as many Members as possible to speak, and I need to respond to the points that have been made.
	The Opposition's position, by contrast, is that there must be a referendum on a treaty that they have unequivocally pronounced to be deceased. I hate to kick a man when he is down—I have always regarded it as a rather nasty spectacle—but nasty is one thing and pointless is another. If the treaty is the cadaver that the Opposition claim it to be, the only possible reason for insisting on a referendum would be a wish to dance on its grave. That is not just nasty; it is a waste of time.
	During our earlier exchanges, Opposition Members were frequently asked to recall various facts that it was inconvenient for them to recall, such as whether they had failed to call for a referendum on Maastricht or the Single European Act. But perhaps the most interesting collective memory failure on their part concerned their response when Denmark failed to ratify the Maastricht treaty. Their stated position at the time was that we must wait and see. The then Conservative Government delayed Third Reading of the Bill as a direct result of the Danish "no", so let them not now deny the sense in waiting a mere eight days until the European Council.

Anthony Steen: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise a matter of considerable concern to the people of Devon. I am concerned that the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, with its budget of £85 million this year, may not place the care of patients as the priority. I am concerned about the total absence of day care facilities in Brixham for Alzheimer's and dementia sufferers since the unilateral closure of the Briseham unit on 20 December 2004. I am concerned about the lack of available NHS respite care, which is forcing those who look after very sick people to pay for their own respite provision out of their own pockets. I am concerned that we are not facing up to the reality that, as our population gets older, more people will need mental health care and that the NHS must be equipped to cope with the rapid increase in demand.
	There are more than 750,000 people in the UK with dementia. The vast majority are over 65 and the incidence of dementia increases with age—one in 20 people over 65 have dementia, which increases to one in five among people over 80. My constituency has the 13th largest proportion of pensionable citizens and there are approximately 1,155 people with dementia in the area. They are among the most vulnerable people in our society. Dementia does not just leave sufferers with failing memories—as the condition worsens, many people cannot feed, bathe or dress themselves. Dementia is a forgotten disease. One carer said:
	"This cruel disease does not just affect one person—it has affected everyone we come into contact with. It has forced an end to my husband's career; it has affected my career quite dramatically. It has changed our standard of living and our lifestyle. It has changed everything we have lived and worked for."
	One carer, describing her father's condition, wrote:
	"I found my father's frustration and anger terribly distressing. He cried in the world he didn't understand. He got lost in his own bungalow and was frightened of his own reflection in the mirror."
	As medical advances lengthen our life expectancy, the proportion of our population with dementia and requiring the support of the mental health services will increase. The problems presented by an ageing population are much discussed in relation to pension provision, but we are yet properly to address what it means in terms of the changing demands placed on our health services, particularly our mental health services. It is estimated that, by 2010, there will be 870,000 people with dementia in the UK. That is the same as the population of Manchester and Liverpool put together. In five years' time, there will be that number of people with dementia or Alzheimer's. By 2050, nearly 2 million people will have dementia or Alzheimer's. That will require a significant expansion of mental health service provision and availability of day and residential care.
	Since 2001, the care and treatment for those with dementia in my constituency has been the responsibility of the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, which provides mental health and learning disability services to the population of Devon. There is a staff of 2,800 and in 2004–05, it spent approximately £80 million. One of its problems is the absurd position whereby it is funded by nine different sources. There are therefore nine paymasters—seven primary care trusts in Devon and Torbay, Torbay unitary authority and Devon county council. That makes for unnecessary problems with priorities and management. Will the Under-Secretary investigate how to simplify the funding arrangement?
	In the 2005–06 financial year, the trust budget has been significantly increased, with Devon county council alone increasing its contribution to nearly £1 million, yet front-line service provision is often incoherent, unequal throughout the county and seemingly not patient-driven. More money has not meant better services for the Alzheimer's and dementia sufferer.
	The Briseham unit in my constituency provided specialist treatment and assessment services to those over 65 with dementia. The building was specifically designed for the purpose of caring for the elderly mentally ill. That made it an especially suitable environment, more so than wards that had not been specifically built for the purpose. It had 16 beds, as well as offering day care seven days a week and a small respite facility, which was fully utilised. It was unilaterally closed on Monday 20 December 2004, although the trust remains insistent that it has not been closed but simply suspended. It remains suspended six months later. As a member of staff who was at Briseham recently said to me:
	"I cannot believe that they have closed a purpose built, secure unit with access to an enclosed garden for patients to wander freely, and left open a ward on the first floor of a hospital where it is very difficult to observe patients, where they have no freedom to move, and the only view they have is the top of cars and buses."
	The unit did not provide long-term residential care but day care and respite care. It provided the essential back-up to allow carers to continue looking after their loved ones at home. As the majority of carers are the spouses of the person for whom they are caring, they are likely to be elderly. Carers can cope and continue their role only with appropriate support. If they fall ill or cannot provide all the necessary care, sufficient respite and day care must be available. If it is lacking, everybody suffers, and people with dementia will need full-time residential care at the cost of millions to the taxpayer.
	The chief executive of the Devon Partnership NHS Trust personally told me that he intended to wait until the Sainsbury centre for mental health published its report on "Future Development of Mental Health Services for Older People" in Devon before deciding about any change in the services that Briseham provided. Instead, he did the opposite. He closed the unit before the publication of the report, which came out in January, but to which the trust has still not responded. In a letter following the closure of Briseham, Mr. Tulley, the chief executive, stated:
	"I think it is obvious that the day services were extremely valued and some form of day care in Brixham should continue."
	So why has it not continued?
	What happened after Briseham was closed reminds us that administrative decisions have a genuine and profound impact on people's lives. A few patients were offered care at the Harborne unit in Totnes, which is at least a 30-minute drive away. Such is the stress and strain of the journey that some patients have had to be medicated. However, the majority of people who previously received day and respite care at Briseham have been offered no alternative care by Devon Partnership NHS Trust since it suspended the unit.
	Mr. Gosling of Brixham is 85 this month. He devotedly cares for his wife who has Alzheimer's. When Briseham was open, he could count on it to provide day care when he needed time off, for example, to go to the dentist. In addition, the unit would care for his wife once every four weeks—the only respite Mr. Gosling got. Since Briseham was closed, Mr. and Mrs. Gosling have had to pay for respite care elsewhere. They have had to spend more than £1,000 of their hard-earned money for that purpose as the Devon Partnership NHS Trust has offered them no alternative care. Mr. Gosling cannot understand how the powers that be could be so inhuman as to wipe out something that people need and rely upon, and that the NHS has a duty to provide.
	Mr. Barber of Higher Furzeham road, Brixham is 77 and cares for his wife, who has been battling with Alzheimer's for 10 years. Before its closure, the Briseham unit provided day care on a four-day-a-week basis for him, as well as residential care for a couple of days when Mr. Barber was unwell or unable to care for his wife. Since it closed, no day care has been available for Mrs. Barber and, at a meeting of the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, Mr. Barber was told that the other units that provided care for elderly people with mental health problems were unable to care for his wife, even if he could not do so through illness or for other reasons, as they were already seriously overloaded.
	Mrs. Bovey of Golden close, Brixham cares for her husband, who has progressive supranuclear palsy. She cannot even pop out to get a pint of milk or loaf of bread unless someone can stay with him as he needs round-the-clock care. Prior to the closure of the Briseham unit, he had day care there two days a week and a week's respite care roughly every four weeks. Mrs. Bovey says that that was her "lifeline". She was never offered alternative care in any other unit. It is only in the past few weeks that social services, not the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, have come forward with an offer of some respite care, yet Mr. Tulley, the chief executive, gave me a personal assurance that everyone who used Briseham is better off under the new arrangements.

Anthony Steen: The hon. Gentleman could not have put it better. He and I share the bay—he has slightly more of it than me—and we are of one mind about the matter. Mental health services must be led not by what the administrators want but by what the patients and the carers need. I am grateful for that intervention.
	In a letter that Mr. Tulley wrote to me on 5 January, he said:
	"I accept entirely that the current uncertainty is unhelpful to families of sufferers".
	But he has done nothing about it. The chief executive also refers to the closure of Briseham as a "short-term decision". Six months later and we are no further forward.
	In the letter of 5 January, the chief executive admitted:
	"There has been no consultation in relation to the suspension of the service"
	at Briseham. It is not just the Member of Parliament who was not consulted but the staff, the patients, the carers, the Devon Partnership patient and public forum, Devon county council and the Torbay unitary authority, the later two having scrutinising responsibilities. How can the trust justify failing to consult the interested parties before taking such a monumental decision, which has devastated so many of my constituents' lives?
	What is the point of the Government setting up a consultation and scrutiny mechanism if it is totally disregarded? Does not the Minister agree that the behaviour of the trust leaves much to be desired and that it must put its consultation process in order? The manner of Briseham's closure and the lack of consultation give weight to allegations that the trust behaves in an autocratic, cavalier and even bullying way, rather than as a responsible public body.
	Consultation has been prolific over whether to reopen the unit, which has so far taken six months without any conclusion. Why is it that the unit can be closed summarily and without consultation, abandoning patients and carers, but cannot be reopened without endless committee meetings? It seems that services can be suspended at speed but that reinstating them is a painstaking process.
	The trust conveniently forgets that it cannot put on hold the debilitating effects of the disease while it debates the future. I believe the Torbay unitary authority's health scrutiny committee will produce a critical report later this month, which will quite rightly draw attention to the failures of the trust in a number of important areas, particularly in relation to the closure of Briseham.
	One constituent of mine who received day care at Briseham before its closure was given no alternative care immediately following the closure of the unit, and his wife had to look after him unassisted for seven weeks until an alternative unit was able to provide some help. Sadly, he has since died. It is simply not acceptable that, in the last few months of a person's life, when they need care most—and the health trust knows that they need it most—care is unilaterally withdrawn, and their life is made worse, not to mention that of the carer. Their lives are callously turned upside down without any regard to the impact. The worst thing is that, too often, the administrators are not taken to task for that because the people hit hardest by their actions are those least able to speak up for themselves. Few believe the reasons given by Devon Partnership NHS Trust as to why Briseham was closed and the trust has not been forthcoming with a detailed explanation that fits with the reality.
	The whole area of mental health still suffers from public suspicion and distrust. A key step in overcoming it is for the mental health authorities to be more open about the way that they run their organisations. There needs to be transparency not just in the decision-making process, but in day-to-day operations. We should never forget that those who rely on mental health services are the most vulnerable and confused people who are the least able to say what they want for themselves. That is made even more unacceptable by virtue of the fact that those who rely on mental health services, for whom the partnership is supposed to provide, are sometimes extremely confused. They need their carers listened to and they need to be heard.
	I ask the Secretary of State to review the running of the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, its decision to close the Briseham unit, the manner in which the decision was made, current scrutiny procedures and the failure to provide day care facilities in Brixham—with 18,000 people, it is the largest town in my constituency—for people with dementia.
	I believe that the Government are planning a new approach to care for elderly people with mental health problems whereby responsibility will switch from health to social services. That will enable the providers of services to charge for whatever they offer, which could mean Alzheimer's patients and their carers being squeezed of every penny piece until the pips squeak. Everyone will be means-tested. If a carer needs respite care, he will have to pay for it, and the Minister will appreciate that many carers will not be able to afford it and be forced to give up caring and put the patient back into the health service, along with the accompanying additional costs. Have the Government not realised that the consequence of their penny-pinching approach towards those least able to fend for themselves will be disastrous? Furthermore, it is rumoured that the Government's position that dementia and Alzheimer's are no longer to be treated as an illness, but as a condition, may result in health care for people with those diseases no longer being free at the point of delivery.
	Carers save the state millions of pounds by providing care that the state would otherwise have to provide. That should be remembered when arguments about the cost of facilities for people with dementia are being bandied about. It is vital that the carer's desire to look after their loved ones is not exploited by the state as a way to avoid responsibility for looking after people with serious mental health problems.
	Yesterday, I met the chairman, chief executive and chief nursing officer of the partnership trust. I have no doubt that their intentions are good and that they wish to do the best they can for those with mental illnesses in Devon, but they are going about it in a very strange way. If they are to win back the confidence of not just myself, but very many others, they will need to prove that they do provide people with the front-line services that the patients—not the administrators—need and deserve, with the £85 million budget that they have at their disposal.
	The trust was at pains to point out that the type of support for people with dementia is increasingly focused on support in the home rather than in special units, but there is still a need for day respite services, as carers often want some time to themselves in their own home. Briseham provided that with its day-care facilities and the popularity of the service speaks for itself. People with Alzheimer's often benefit from mixing with other people in a different environment, particularly one where medical treatment for any ailments can be provided immediately. I am not entirely convinced that the evidence bears out the trust's suggestion that care in the home is preferable to care in a specialist unit. It is not an either or situation: both are needed.
	We are the fourth richest economy in the world, so it is simply not acceptable that, with the resources and skills available, we treat those in desperate need of support so badly. How society treats its elderly and vulnerable is a most significant reflection of its values. There are too many public bodies in Britain whose employees feel unaccountable to anybody other than their immediate superiors—certainly not to the people whom they are meant to be serving. Some of those bodies behave like third-world dictatorships rather than publicly accountable and socially responsible organisations.
	Will the Minister ensure that she takes a very close look at the Devon Partnership NHS Trust and makes a clear and unequivocal statement as to the future of the Briseham unit in Brixham, what facilities will be available in Brixham for people with Alzheimer's, what respite facilities will be available for carers and what domiciliary care and home facilities will be on call? The testimonies of carers of people who were cared for at the Briseham unit show that it was a hugely valued and vital resource for people coping with incredibly difficult situations. The way the Devon Partnership NHS Trust has behaved cries out for an explanation. Perhaps the Minister can make some suggestions as to how it can move forward with the support of the entire community.